Are there two green capitalism fractions beyond the traditional fossil shareholder capitalism?
In addition to the traditional fossil shareholder capitalism camp, which is not interested in either climate change or any social or human values except in their greenwashing and PR department advertising, are there also two green camps that are ideally grouped around Warren Buffett and WEF-Reset Klaus Schwab.? Interesting camp formations: On the one hand the green stakeholer capitalism like Reset-WEF-Schwab with ESG funds, now the green shareholder capitalism of Buffett and then the traditional ungreen shareholder capitalism of Trump, who relies on oil and gas. Is Schwab’s warning perhaps the fear that the shareholders, regardless of green criteria, could still come together again in the spirit of best profit maximization and rejection of Keynesianism and too much feared state intervention ala Buffet’s „green war strategy“? But Buffett doesn’t sound like that, as he apparently thinks that companies shouldn’t do social and humane things, but only make only profit, the rest was a matter for the state and if you want climate protection, then you have to pursue a „green war strategy“, whereby the FDP biased German magazine Focus thinks that compared to Buffet Habecks Heat Pump Act would be a moderate intervention. Warren Buffett as the promoter of a green war economy and eco-dictator? And where do Musk, Zuckerberg, Soros, Bezoes, Gates and others fit in, also in terms of ESG criteria and Blackrock Fink? Two news:
„Lessons from the Oracle of Omaha“ Warren Buffett wants to push through the green revolution with „war strategy“
Thursday, May 11th, 2023 | 17:13
US needs ‚war strategy‘ for clean energy Buffett: The United States has only dealt with an emergency like climate change once: in World War II, when a government vested with broad powers transformed an economically mediocre country so that it could win a war. „They said to Henry Kaiser, ‚You build ships‘ and to Henry Ford, ‚You build tanks‘.“ The country now needs a similarly radical change. „Can we also do this in peacetime when 50 states have to work together and nobody has the power to enforce measures?“ The United States still lacks the unity and conviction for renewed restructuring. „The money is there, the people are there, the goal is obvious. But we can’t do it.” Buffett didn’t have a solution. „I only know the problem.“
Lesson: Buffett’s view is more like green conversion plans than close-to-market climate solutions. A heating exchange obligation, as planned in Germany, would still be a comparably small state intervention according to his plans.“
„Warren Buffett’s focus on shareholders over the planet could ‚backfire‘ on him, said World Economic Forum’s executive chairman
- Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, said he wants to talk to Warren Buffett.
- He said Buffett’s focus on shareholder profitability over the planet may one day backfire.
- „Buffett has previously said companies should stop making decisions based on social beliefs.“Buffett has previously said companies should stop making decisions based on social beliefs.“
Yesterday at German ZDF talkshow Markus Lanz: Kubicki and a Habeck fan. The latter accused Kubicki and his party FDP of only orienting towards technologies that do not yet exist, such as hydrogen, which are very expensive, or marginal solutions that are open to technology, such as biomass or hydropower, in order to avoid the clarifying historical cut that the medium-term cheapest and feasible solution is initially the heat pumps , especially since the other variants are either not available at all, such as hydrogen technology, and would also be much more expensive, everything else such as biomass or wood-burning stoves are only marginally available and also harmful to the environment, Habeck corruption or not. Kubicki said that such an abrupt change by means of a ban on oil and gas heating from a target date and solely focusing on heat pumps by means of a dogmatic exchange law would ruin broad sections of house and property owners and even force them to sell their houses, especially with rapidly falling real estate values; and supply chain difficulties and a shortage of skilled workers would make this completely unfeasible in this time frame and therefore unrealistic, whereupon he was accused of only wanting to protect the old industries and capital fractions, property owners and traditional plumbing craftsmen, what Kubicki rejected as an FDP memer. Instead, he proposed a gradual but steady increase in the carbon tax to get people away from oil and gas heating through the market. Whereby the reason may be more that state intervention by means of scrapping bonuses or state subsidies is suspect to liberals, because they would have to be raised by tax increases or debts. If the state would pay for it, almost every citizen would be entitled to any new heating system including renovation. What Friday for Future also demands, also in terms of intergenerational justice in terms of preventing a climate catastrophe, while the FDP understands intergenerational justice in terms of austerity policy and no new debts. There is the debt ceiling and debt cap and not only the FDP is quoting it, especially since the zero interest rate policy of the ECB is now over, under which the investment backlog of the last few decades could easily have been resolved, but neither Schröder nor the Merkel giverments did do so but orvatized, deregulated and cut state expenditures due to the neoliberal ideology, , but after the financial crisis 2008 euro rescue packages, corona rescue packages and Ukraine rescue packages including the Bundeswehr special fund have been added and the FDP doesn’t want to load up a climate protection rescue package. And as I said: The IMF also forecasts zero growth for 2024 and 2025, Lindner a tax loss of 30 billion euros and then all the other programs. Nothing more is heard of a scrapping bonuses for heating systems, just as little as of the increase in the free tax limits for inheritance tax, the elimination of cold progression, excess profit tax, transaction tax and the like. Yes, which green capitalism model are represented here? The AfD is the only party that denies man-made climate change and wants to keep oil, gas and nuclear power, i.e. it rather represents traditional fossil stakeholder capitalism, whereby there is a difference between the neoliberal Goldmann-Sachs-Weidel faction and the Höcke wing with its “organic market economy“ which are different – with the exception of their common social Darwinism.
Yes, some questions arise:
1) Is the criticism of the climate protection movement that the Green New Deal is only about modernizing the business location for the purpose of capitalist competitiveness including (export technology) business dealings, i.e. „only“ an economic motive that does not take any account of ecological necessities andis therefore the ideal of the climate protection movement, that the current parties and capital could be the addressee and at the same time the hoped-for carrier of change, illusory?
2) Is it a struggle between old and new industries, which are looking for their respective political supporters and political movements and also finance them, including a struggle between capital groups, namely the old fossil shareholder capitalism (Trump/AfD: oil, coal, steel) versus WEF-Schwab’s Reset-green and woken stakeholder capitalism with a human face and associated ESG investment funds?
3) Is it only about the preparation of a business location for economic motives or is a reformist capital faction not trying a Green New Deal because of the increasingly obvious climate damage, which insurance companies such as Munich Re also complain about and have to pay for, their ecological reproduction conditions, which are of course the necessary basis for economic capital accumulation and for further profit making the basis ? So two birds with one stone and not either/or, but as well as. Or is it all greenwashing and window dressing?
4) Doesn’t China give a fuck about the whole Green New Deal hype and doesn’t care about the climate protection targets if it now wants to build more coal-fired power plants by 2030? According to the climate scientists, that would mean: Game over! Should one then topple the CP China or bomb its coal-fired power plants, and is it possible that in the future climate protection as an intervention title for military interventions and eco-wars are conceivable, as is the case, for example, with drugstore chain owner and Schröder friend Dirk Rossmann who propagates in his novel „The Ninth Arm of the Octopus“ an eco-war alliance Xi, Putin, Kamela Harris as a warring party against a Brazilian dictator destroying the Amazon. Maybe soon with other actors and targets.
5) Will there be a „climate catastrophe“ and the „tipping points“, or will the rulers and the rich look for new, environmentally safe refuges and safe spaces and can also arrange the entire production by means of relocations, or will this lead to a total reduction in all capital-accumulating opportunities?
5) What else speaks against the fact that there is climate change, how serious is it or will it become and is it „man-made“-capitalism can also be said to be made, but also communism-made, since the communist states also relied on fossil industrialization, although today only capitalist states exist, unless one sees the Chinese market economy with Chinese characteristics as communist because of the name of the CP China. Can one transform the previous traditional fossil shareholder capitalism into a green capitalism by means of reform or will that not work and does it need a revolution? Is all this still democratically feasible or isn’t an eco-dictatorship needed? 6) Within the green capitalist camp there also seem to be two factions. Warren Buffett, who recently at his annual financial capital pilgrimage meeting at his Berkshire Hattaway in Omaha said that entrepreneurs should not invest in social or philanthropic things such as better labour condition and safety or climate protection because it reduces profits, but on the other hand he called for a „green war strategy“, whereby he does not see this as the task of the entrepreneurs, who should finance this from their companies, but as a task of the state and the states. If he acknowledges that there is a climate change problem, but that this is not the task of the companies, on the other hand the state can only set framework conditions or make subsidies and tax breaks or tax increases. What does Buffett have in mind, especially since he once said: “Of course there is a class war, but we are winning it”. WEF-Reset-Schwab now wants to talk to Buffett and convince him that this shareholder capitalism backfires, simply through the insurance companies in which he invests and that there is already a social responsibility of the company, also out of self-interest, which is why stakeholder capitalism was the only counter-model to be advocated Can one say that there are ideally two green capital camps – green shareholder capitalism with a green war strategy of the state as Buffett and green stakeholder capitalism as WEF-Reset Schwab and the ESG Funds? Is the latter an illusion, since Marx once said that those capital factions that want to act in a philanthropic manner were doomed to perish in the medium and long term due to capitalist competition and its cost disadvantage? How should the Green New Deal of Biden and the EU be assessed – which model is more likely to be followed?
State and capital: Green New Deal, Trump, the politicization of the financial markets and the struggle of the capital fractions
Schwab, Gates, Rossmann, Elon Musk-when billioniares want to save the world
Siemens and the Siemens Foundation: Shift from a ideology think tank of the black-brown New Right in the 80s and 90s to a black- green think tank under Joe Kaeser and the roll back under Bosch?
Sustainable defloration: Siemens CEO offers Friday for Future supervisory board position
Suncable instead of Desert Tech: Solar power for Asia instead for Europe and Africa
Ecofiction: Ecocaust-The New Green World Order